Doesn't Light speed theory debunk "Young earth" theory?

Lucid Lunacy
I gave no definition. In fact I wasn't suggesting anything other than using theirs!!

Who's to say what their definition of the divine is? Ummm…they say.

I am talking about how they describe their god(s) and how they describe their religion. I am not attempting to do it for them. Am I making up
religious scripture and stating they believe its contents? No. They have their own they believe in. And that is all we need in order to
understand the point I was making.

Which is again: if they all have a relationship with the divine entities of their religious faith it presupposes the truthfulness of their
scripture/holy books and thus creates a plethora of logical contradictions amongst the faiths.

They can't all be true based on their (not mine!) understanding of the divine. It can't be more obvious than isolating their accounts of creation,
that's why I am using them as examples. God 1 claims it's the one and only creator god and it made the oceans before the stars. God 2 claims it's
the one and only creator god and it made the stars before the oceans. They can't both be true accounts of reality.

Religions postulate truth claims about reality. And religions conflict on fundamental levels with each other. It's completely illogical that they
would all be true.

Thus your statement they all have a relationship with the divine doesn't work. Unless we say, for example, Egyptian religion is the only true one,
and Mormons and Muslims are actually paying homage to Ma'at or Osiris with their relationship with the divine. That being the case, that's quite a
deceitful relationship hehehe.

How you described their divinities and religions is only what you see from the outside. Finite tangible objects, human speech and stories are very
limited in describing their experiences of the divine. But the immensity of such experience is very influential and it fills their hearts and minds
with so much awe and wonder that they cannot contain it within themselves and so the strong desire to share and speak of it to others. It is a human
experience and it is the same for any other human endeavor.

Although from the outside, if you argue the logic of the each account, you will find contradictions between the stories, but that is not the point.
Those are just human finite limited expressions of their experiences with the divine/infinite. I am reminded of that Indian parable about multiple
blind men attempting to describe what an elephant is through there senses of touch. These religions claiming their senses/stories to be the ultimate
truth is but a futile attempt at trying to limit the limitless.

Religions provide an avenue to have a relationship with the divine but if the believers cling so much to their limited versions of the truth, they
begin to lose that relationship and become obsessed with their own (mis)understanding. It is difficult to express to another human being what en
experience with the infinite is, so the only thing they can do is try to write it down with the limitations of language. Some are severely misled and
begin to worship the messenger instead of understanding the message.

Lucid Lunacy
Pot calling the kettle black.

Okay here is my response to that. Using your own words:

What's funny is I didn't actually give any definition of my own or make an attempt at describing it. Yet, here you did. You literally just described
how they should believe.

You essentially just said a true believer is a religious pluralist. I assure you not all religions agree with that. Like not at all. Calling those
believers that differ from what you just described as not 'true believers' very much makes you guilty of what you just accused me of. Which is,
defining it for them.

And now you're defining what non-believing means for the non-believers. I hope you see how hypocritical you're being.

Also. I have no idea what all that meant. Brings destruction to anything good in the Universe?? O_o

It absolutely doesn't offend me, and thank you for noticing.

I am sorry the words I have used are so limited in what I'm trying to express. I do not intend to throw accusations or condemnations to anyone who
is reading these lines.

But I assure you, at the heart of every religion, it does not matter what/how you believe in a divine or whether you don't believe in a divine. It
will all go back to the divine anyway.. haha. But it's the works of the heart and the fruits of its actions is evident around the person.

All these disagreements that you hear, see, or read from the outside are but trivial arguments on whose accounts of the divine is more true than the
others. I usually stay away from these arguments because it is never ending. But occasionally, for the sake of fun and some exercises in logic, I
assume one side while a friend assumes the other.

I'll go back to my initial question, can man/woman be separated from science? Does science still exist if it was devoid of the interactions of
man/woman? The answer seems like an obvious "Yes" because the sun will still shine and the earth revolve around it even if humankind became extinct
off the face of the earth. All these scientific processes still continue to happen without the influence of humankind. True, in this manner, science
is separate from man, if you would call all that "science". But science is just a label we put on all these things we have discovered under the
scientific process/movement, they already operated before without any label.

The answer to your question is actually "No". Science would not exist without Human beings (or, at least an intelligent life form that uses it).
Science isn't the sun shining, or the earth's orbit of the sun. These things are natural phenomena. Science and the Scientific Method are man-made
creations. We developed Science in order to more accurately explain those natural phenomena.

To conduct the experiments, formulate theories, and develop those conclusions, you need an intelligent, sophisticated being. There for, you do need
men/women to exist in order to have science.

Once again, science is merely here in order for us to explain naturally occurring phenomena to our best attempts.

And so with this distinction, science is but another pair of glasses that we look upon the world around us. It is in the same manner when we use
religion. The methods may be different, science has a more rigorous style of vindicating its findings thru a series of experiments and physical
evidences, but religion back in the days does that too, although not strictly relying on physical evidence and more on some wild superstitions.
People gather together and rejoice in their common understanding of the nature around them and attribute it to a divine entity for lack of better
words.

I agree with you on the point that Science - like religion - is just another way of attempting to explain what we see in nature. However, this does
not make science a religion. Simply a commonality.

Ghost147
Yet again, you are over simplifying a word, in this case Preaching. You're using it in the correct way, as in saying that they are delivering a
speech, but you're also implying that it has some religious context to it. Which it doesn't. They are not delivering a sermon, they are simply
giving a speech about some facts. Once again, does this make Mathematics religious? or any other form of speech religious because it could, from an
obscure distance, be compared to religious preaching? Not at all.

Actually, yes it does. It is in the same manner that when a preacher starts talking; To the preacher, what he preaches he claims as facts, hoping
that the listener will believe in it. He is offering his own perspective, how he formulated it, how he has come about it, it may not be as evident
and rigorous as a scientific thesis, but the aim is still to convey to the listener: this is what I've seen and done, this is how I have described
what these things are.

Again, this doesn't make mathematics (or any other form of group learning, with a set speaker) religious. The only similarity is that there is a
person who is talking to an audience. You could say that they are both giving a speech; but it is irresponsible to say both are preaching.

The definition of preaching is:

1.
the act or practice of a person who preaches.
2.
the art of delivering sermons.
3.
a sermon.
4.
a public religious service with a sermon.

The definition for Preach is:

1.
to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2.
to deliver (a sermon).
3.
to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.

Lastly, the definition of a sermon is:

1.
a discourse for the purpose of religious instruction or exhortation, especially one based on a text of Scripture and delivered by a member of the
clergy as part of a religious service.
2.
any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, especially on a moral issue.
3.
a long, tedious speech.

As you can see, Preaching, and Preach both only apply to actual religious issues. You could say that they are both giving a sermon, as it does not
directly relate to religious activity (in every sense). However, if a mathematician is giving a "sermon", it would imply only the last definition of
sermon, being a long tedious speech. Which would also only mean the definition is based on perspective, as well as being very specific, there for not
implying that all of those speeches are sermons to begin with.

To say such a thing would be considered more of a sarcastic comment, more than anything else; but does not have anything to do with relating a
religious tone in its context.

However, a preacher conducting a sermon would be one, to all three of the definitions of the word Sermon. It, HAS to include the first though.

Seeing how the only possible way to say that any subject is conducting a sermon in a non-religious tone, would be a sarcastic, and there for still
non-religious comment.

Once again, you're over analyzing, and over simplifying the actions in those two separate events.

The listener doesn't actually believe in it at first until he can verify for himself under similar experiences of what has been described. And when
he goes through that experience, I'm 100% sure you've just won yourself a believer. Or in the case of science, you've just convinced someone else
the validity of your hypotheses or findings. And then you belong to that "religion", an inclusive one at that, but nonetheless still another form
of religion. The god is invisible, almost non-existent, but its still there working the mechanics of its universe. But you can also say that a
universe can exist without a god having to create or operate it. It's really up to you how you relate with the universe around you or the divine
from within...

This, still is being over analytical and over simplified. I'm not quite sure how I can convince you in any other way that anything other than a
religion is in fact not a religion at all; despite apparent and obscure relations.

Just because the fruit "Coconut" has the word "nut" in it, doesn't make it a nut, for instance. This is essentially what you're trying to argue.

From the very core to its peripherals, it's all a matter of time for you to notice when similar structures or activities happen with that in science
as it did in religion.

I am not denying that there are similarities in some aspects of either of them. In fact, I've even provided examples of those similarities. However,
just because they have similarities does not make them indifferent.

If I may add, in the same manner, it is like that too in Mathematics. God is the number. Everything, the whole universe is viewed through numbers,
the devotion through such perspective is astounding, so astounding that some mathematicians have gone insane when they have encountered the
infinite.

Yes, and you need air to breath. Your lungs open and allow you to have that air. You need to have faith that your lungs will open. You need to devote
your entire life to breathing. Without the ability to breath you would not exist. Taking a course on scuba diving while an instructor (or, in other
words "preacher) tells a group of people the proper breathing techniques, and tells you that without air you would die.

Means that air is god, and breathing is a religion.

See how ridiculous it is?

You can draw whatever lines you want, but breathing is not a religion. I've demonstrated a completely obscure view on breathing and air. Then applied
what I know from religious similarities. and made a new "religion".

Of course, it isn't a religion at all. I've just managed to see a few similar points and called it religious.

Is this making sense to you? (that's not meant to be an insult or a snide remark)

To put it in just a couple of sentences, to me, when a person devotes himself to a particular activity so much that it influences his world-view, I
look at that activity as a form of religion. You may claim that science is not a religion, but from another's point of view, science has become your
personal religion. You may claim that you do not offer any prayers or worship in these scientific endeavors but the amount of time and devotion you
have given in the name of science is already akin to a living form of prayer or worship.

Somehow, I feel that you have negative sentiments towards the word "religion" or its conventional meaning. This is probably what is driving you to
refute all the similarities or relations that I have presented. In the western world, I presume there is this general anti-thesis against religion,
probably because of historical events that left tragedies within its people and I can understand that. I suppose it's all in due time when these
seemingly opposite sides "science" and "religion" finally reconcile with each other.

As for the last example you have given, the breathing and air... well here's what I have to say.

For the scuba diver example... yes, it becomes his religion. It's not only the breathing that is the religion or that air is god, but the whole
activity and everything it entails becomes a religion. In time, he will formulate his own beliefs based on his everyday encounter with the ocean, how
to survive in the deep blue, form affection/fondness for his equipment, attending to them every time with careful maintenance, and so on and so forth.
He might even go beyond the mere activity of scuba diving and form relationships with local wildlife and thus expand his personal religion even
more.

But if you want to simplify it to breathing and just the air, I tell you it will become a religion when it is scarce or gone. Now, we take it for
granted because air is abundant and breathing is a very subconscious activity. But when the time comes or a situation happens where air is very
limited and there is no assurance that it will become abundant again, breathing becomes a very conscious and important activity. Air is upheld with
utmost importance. How to acquire this air and how to regulate one's breathing to make it efficient, or maybe even develop alternatives to
breathing, it will become some form of implied religion.

The problem is the parameters you're using essentially renders everything a religion.

Somehow, I feel that you have negative sentiments towards the word "religion" or its conventional meaning.

That's just it. You're not using its conventional meaning.

Just like in our earlier discussion you were not using the conventional understanding of these faiths but instead used a pluralist/comparative
religious take on it.

Which is fine. It's just not the conventional understanding.

In both these instances you're loosing any sense of distinction as you seem to only concern yourself with commonalities. When the distinctions are
pointed out, you either seem to be minimizing their significance or ignoring them entirely. The conventional understanding isn't doing that. Most
people wouldn't call someone that believes in alternative medicine religious or alternative medicine a religion. You are.

Now that translates to our own discussion. Again you're using a pluralist take on faith. Everything is an emanation of Godhead. Great. If the divine
is real I would be inclined to agree that's more likely than how orthodox faiths define things. However. Using not mine or yours, but their beliefs
according to their religious faiths we get a picture of what their 'relationship with the divine' looks like. Then it becomes clear they are
incompatible with each other.

That's why I am saying they can't all actually be having a relationship withe the divine. Not unless the divine is playing mind games with them and
intentionally creating fractured rules and codes of ethics and creation stories. What you're doing is attempting to ignore the conventional
understanding of how the religious actually view their religion to reconcile the issues I surfaced. As an example, most Christians are not going to
say Christ is actually also Ganesha, and they are all just splintered emanations of a yet higher godhead. When I was making my point I was trying to
represent the respective faiths in an orthodox manner. And when you do that…you have faiths claiming their god is the one true creator and their
creation stories are literally true etc etc.

But isn't everything a human does his own religion? Neither you nor I has any grasp of any absolute truth, what we think we know is true is just our
strong belief on it to be true, because who can ultimately verify it to be the absolute truth of the universe? Another human? We are all just
ascertaining with each other our own beliefs because the universe is truly a lonely place. We cannot even know about ourselves or another fellow
human absolutely, so the next best thing is to believe in one another and hope things work out the way we thought it would.

I am aware that I am downplaying the distinctions you have pointed out and the reason is because they are just not important. All the distinctions
mentioned so far has only brought about conflict and war and more division. It doesn't help either that most people who continue to argue about
these distinctions are not mature enough to understand the real value of religion. For one, they think the contradictions seems to diminish their set
of beliefs, and for the others, by putting forth a contradiction, they also think it will vindicate more their own sets of beliefs. To a stranger or
observer who is completely unawares of what is going on behind the scenes will only see this as not a finding out of the real truth but rather a
trivial conflict of egos.

But it doesn't mean that they don't have a relationship with the divine. They're just arguing that their relationship is better or more real than
others which is to me kinda immature. When you meet people who have aged in their respective religions, you'll notice that the distinctions don't
matter anymore. And when you meet people who are still arguing about the contradictions, you'll stop to think and ask yourself, honestly what good
will these arguments bring? Personally, if I see the person still needs some help with his self-esteem, I just agree and say yes, your god is joseph
smith jr. He is my god too. Or in another case, yes I agree your god is charles darwin. I can see why you agree with him too.

But jokes aside, it is a dilemma trying to reconcile all these externalities. They served a purpose for some time, to gather together groups of
men/women within a region isolated from other regions. But when the age of discovery or exploration came about, I guess conflict and wars were
inevitable especially when the leader is more bent on conquest and domination rather than harmony and peace.

No, it isn't. Those actions and belief systems have common traits that a religion may also have, sure. But that does not make them a religion.
Breathing is not a religion, despite possessing some common actions that we had to excessively reach in order to find. It is simply an action, or, in
some cases, a belief system. The "belief system" around the importance of breathing in itself is incredibly morphed compared to what an actual
religion is defined as. We have to obscure every defining trait of something else in order to try and make it "religious", there for it isn't
religious at all because of our act of obscuring definitions of religious words.

I am aware that I am downplaying the distinctions you have pointed out and the reason is because they are just not important.

You're not downplaying the distinctions, your misusing them entirely. It simply is not possible to say that everything a human does is religious in
some way or another. It's only possible if you misuse the terms that describe what a religion is or does.

Walking is not a religion
Breathing is not a religion
Blinking is not a religion

... unless, of course, we completely manipulate what defines a religion to be.

But, when we do that, it means that the manipulated definitions aren't really definitions for religion in the first place.

You are isolating every individual action that humans do from each other.. yet every thing we do is related to another thing we do.. we walk to
school, we breathe in class, we blink before a sunset/sunrise.. we eat so that our bodies may have energy to continue doing what it is that we are
doing..

How can you separate one from the other? They all contribute to that which is our own religion.

If that is your perspective of life, then what is the point of living--without any meaning but just simple irrelevant insignificant actions. No
belief at all. So when you carry out scientific experiments, breathing is not necessary? Don't you put any faith that you are still alive today so
that you can continue with those experiments? When you go to the library or laboratory to do research, walking is optional? Unless of course if you
can teleport yourself, or is disabled and makes use of a wheelchair, then walking will only be a memory of your past religion. But even then, don't
you wonder that you can arrive to your destination safely, you believe you will, or else you won't set a single foot out the door.

I don't understand why you harbor such negative sentiments towards anything remotely religious. It is your story, but I enjoy these conversations, so
I hope you will continue to respond to my posts.

I apologize for my absence, i recently got a new job that requires me to be away from home for two weeks at a time. In will do my best to respond to
your comments, however, I am trying to spend as much time with my fiancé as possible when I'm home.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.